5 ms·

I'm not a fan of Thiel but I don't see what he did was wrong.

ggm 4y ago
"wrong" is multifaceted. * Was it illegal? Nope. * Did it only have selfish goals? Yep * Did it necessarily doom others to losses by timeliness and first-come-first-served? Yes * Did he have equity of access with others? Hell no. he's head of the queue. It's not "wrong" in a narrow sense but most people are on point #2, they dislike Thiel (as I do) and so "judge" him to political philosophy, not to legalism. He's not markedly more wrong than other people in his situation. He may well be significantly smarter and asymmetry in the economics space, is held to be counter-productive overall. Of course, you're naieve or a fool or both if you don't exploit it. Maybe you have a different interpretation of "wrong" ? And, I can't fault his logic: This is basic 'win' thinking. Why hang around? What's in it for him, long or short term to wait?
- ianbutler 4y ago
  What would you have had him do? It doesn't seem like his other options would have been logical knowing the bank was insolvent. I guess silently take his money out and not encourage any one else, is that actually worse?
  - mcguire 4y ago
    Are you aware how close SVB was to being solvent after the bank run? From the numbers I have seen, was in mild trouble but nowhere near insolvent before Thiel and those like him caused the bank run.
    - notbuyingit 4y ago
      That might be true and I don't really care? It's _a bank_. My expectation is that I can pull my money whenever the hell I want. If me taking my point out of my account causes you problems, that sounds like a you problem. I absolutely do not freaking get this.
  - ggm 4y ago
    Yes. As you say it arguably is actually worse to act this selfishly silently. Thiel didn't cause the losses at SVB, he is astute enough to understand how to be informed to the risks and rewards of acting regarding his money. If he speaks to that wisdom, he's being informative and helpful to his listeners. I'm trying to be objective here, since my dislike of his political philosophy is pretty extreme. Wearing the loss would be stupid. His ability to survive the losses isn't really material. If he had custody of other people's money and acted to preserve it, he acted wisely to their needs too. What he did I believe hastened the end for less wise people, with less ability to weather the risk and has downstream consequences which follow a run on a bank, in terms of impact on operating business. Stripe and other payment systems suspending clearing, payroll not happening is going to cause problems at large. He's no more "wrong" than Pelosi or her husband or many other US senators and representatives are, trading against their heightened sense of awareness of the market. If Pelosi trades on inside information she may actually be worse than Thiel in this case (my belief is she has no prior knowledge which would exceed the insider-trading limits, and is technically not in breach of law even when I think what she does is totally reprehensible and inappropriate for an elected leader)
    - mcguire 4y ago
      SVB was not insolvent before the run on it; any bank in the world can be driven out of business by a bank run based on nothing but rumors.
    - listenallyall 4y ago
      > He's no more "wrong" than Pelosi or her husband Withdrawing one's own money from a bank is not wrong in any sense, not legally or morally. Your attempt to conflate his actions with elected officials skating around insider-trading laws (even if not technically crossing them, as you presume) is nonsensical and unfair.
  - TMWNN 4y ago
    > What would you have had him do? What ggm and others like him want to say (but don't because they know how stupid it sounds), is that Thiel should have told everyone what he had learned/deduced about SVB's stability ... and not taken his own money out.
    - ggm 4y ago
      It's what everyone who becomes aware of a liquidity crisis in a bank should want, because the alternative is what Jimmy Stewart faces in "it's a wonderful life" or George Darling in "Mary Poppins" I sat through a social media shitstorm over a bank run here in Australia and listening to randoms phoning me with a "hot tip I'll thank them for" was insane. Read other pieces on HN to see other people's "I dodged a bullet" posts: no.. you didn't dodge a bullet you were part of the magazine of bullets which brought it on.
      - notbuyingit 4y ago
        You're implying that actors should've stared down the barrel of a loaded gun, hoped that everyone else on the line would hold, and not flinch. Is this HN? Is this real life? These actors might collude and self-prote t each other often, but they're not a national army, theyre not some unified body. I feel like people just canNOT accept that a bunch of their peers are vultures and that by bumping elbows with them, they're complicit. But that's exactly the truth.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Yes. Whether or not something is legal is independent of whether or not something is wrong. Just to be clear, I'm not opining whether or not what Thiel did was right. I'm making a general point here.
Kranar 4y ago
What he did was the right thing to do. He realized SVB was having significant issues receiving/sending funds and protected himself and the companies he's involved with by withdrawing all his capital from the bank. He also publicly informed others of the issues and recommended they do the same. I'm not exactly sure what actions people think he should have taken. Thiel is not responsible for the poor risk management on the part of SVB.
sneak 4y ago
Also the claim that he was "actively dooming hundreds of startups to failure" is inaccurate. It looks at this time like everyone who was in SVB will be made whole. Nobody is an asshole for withdrawing their money from the bank. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Thiel. This is not one of them, and makes the claimant look like a fool.

ggm 4y ago

"wrong" is multifaceted. * Was it illegal? Nope. * Did it only have selfish goals? Yep * Did it necessarily doom others to losses by timeliness and first-come-first-served? Yes * Did he have equity of access with others? Hell no. he's head of the queue. It's not "wrong" in a narrow sense but most people are on point #2, they dislike Thiel (as I do) and so "judge" him to political philosophy, not to legalism. He's not markedly more wrong than other people in his situation. He may well be significantly smarter and asymmetry in the economics space, is held to be counter-productive overall. Of course, you're naieve or a fool or both if you don't exploit it. Maybe you have a different interpretation of "wrong" ? And, I can't fault his logic: This is basic 'win' thinking. Why hang around? What's in it for him, long or short term to wait?

ianbutler 4y ago
What would you have had him do? It doesn't seem like his other options would have been logical knowing the bank was insolvent. I guess silently take his money out and not encourage any one else, is that actually worse?
- mcguire 4y ago
  Are you aware how close SVB was to being solvent after the bank run? From the numbers I have seen, was in mild trouble but nowhere near insolvent before Thiel and those like him caused the bank run.
  - notbuyingit 4y ago
    That might be true and I don't really care? It's _a bank_. My expectation is that I can pull my money whenever the hell I want. If me taking my point out of my account causes you problems, that sounds like a you problem. I absolutely do not freaking get this.
- ggm 4y ago
  Yes. As you say it arguably is actually worse to act this selfishly silently. Thiel didn't cause the losses at SVB, he is astute enough to understand how to be informed to the risks and rewards of acting regarding his money. If he speaks to that wisdom, he's being informative and helpful to his listeners. I'm trying to be objective here, since my dislike of his political philosophy is pretty extreme. Wearing the loss would be stupid. His ability to survive the losses isn't really material. If he had custody of other people's money and acted to preserve it, he acted wisely to their needs too. What he did I believe hastened the end for less wise people, with less ability to weather the risk and has downstream consequences which follow a run on a bank, in terms of impact on operating business. Stripe and other payment systems suspending clearing, payroll not happening is going to cause problems at large. He's no more "wrong" than Pelosi or her husband or many other US senators and representatives are, trading against their heightened sense of awareness of the market. If Pelosi trades on inside information she may actually be worse than Thiel in this case (my belief is she has no prior knowledge which would exceed the insider-trading limits, and is technically not in breach of law even when I think what she does is totally reprehensible and inappropriate for an elected leader)
  - mcguire 4y ago
    SVB was not insolvent before the run on it; any bank in the world can be driven out of business by a bank run based on nothing but rumors.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    > He's no more "wrong" than Pelosi or her husband Withdrawing one's own money from a bank is not wrong in any sense, not legally or morally. Your attempt to conflate his actions with elected officials skating around insider-trading laws (even if not technically crossing them, as you presume) is nonsensical and unfair.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  > What would you have had him do? What ggm and others like him want to say (but don't because they know how stupid it sounds), is that Thiel should have told everyone what he had learned/deduced about SVB's stability ... and not taken his own money out.
  - ggm 4y ago
    It's what everyone who becomes aware of a liquidity crisis in a bank should want, because the alternative is what Jimmy Stewart faces in "it's a wonderful life" or George Darling in "Mary Poppins" I sat through a social media shitstorm over a bank run here in Australia and listening to randoms phoning me with a "hot tip I'll thank them for" was insane. Read other pieces on HN to see other people's "I dodged a bullet" posts: no.. you didn't dodge a bullet you were part of the magazine of bullets which brought it on.
    - notbuyingit 4y ago
      You're implying that actors should've stared down the barrel of a loaded gun, hoped that everyone else on the line would hold, and not flinch. Is this HN? Is this real life? These actors might collude and self-prote t each other often, but they're not a national army, theyre not some unified body. I feel like people just canNOT accept that a bunch of their peers are vultures and that by bumping elbows with them, they're complicit. But that's exactly the truth.
JohnFen 4y ago
Yes. Whether or not something is legal is independent of whether or not something is wrong. Just to be clear, I'm not opining whether or not what Thiel did was right. I'm making a general point here.

Kranar 4y ago

What he did was the right thing to do. He realized SVB was having significant issues receiving/sending funds and protected himself and the companies he's involved with by withdrawing all his capital from the bank. He also publicly informed others of the issues and recommended they do the same. I'm not exactly sure what actions people think he should have taken. Thiel is not responsible for the poor risk management on the part of SVB.

sneak 4y ago

Also the claim that he was "actively dooming hundreds of startups to failure" is inaccurate. It looks at this time like everyone who was in SVB will be made whole. Nobody is an asshole for withdrawing their money from the bank. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Thiel. This is not one of them, and makes the claimant look like a fool.